Contexts and concepts: Thoughts on the paradigmatic framework

Although it may be a bit untraditional, we'd like to begin this commentary with sincere expressions of gratitude. We are grateful to Larry Constantine for his legacy of thoughtful and diligent efforts in promoting theoretical advancement in Family Science. As explained in his contribution to this issue, the propositions and key assertions of the Paradigmatic Framework are most immediately the result of a 2-year collaborative project but lie in theoretical assertions he has made since the 1980s (see Constantine, 1988). Many minds and many hours have gone into this effort. Synergistic partnerships push social and behavioral science into the spaces and places that we need to explore in academe to best impact the lived experiences for those we work with and for; his work is an exemplar in that regard. We are additionally grateful to the editor, Katherine Allen, for affording the group of authors you will read in this issue an opportunity to share their thoughts on Constantine's most recent contributions to the field. Finally, we would like to thank the theorists that have contributed to our own development as family scholars and theorists, many (but not all) of whom are cited in this paper. As noted by Constantine when citing Knapp (2009), theory is indispensable via its descriptive, sensitizing, integrative, explanatory, and value functions in the creation of knowledge. Constantine and others (see Cox & Paley, 1997; Kantor & Lehr, 1975; Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993) have elucidated for family scholars the origins, development, basic assumptions, key terms, and utility of systems thinking in the context of family life. Moreover, its descriptive, sensitizing, integrative, explanatory, and value functions have been identified, as has its heuristic value. We do not wish to spend the limited time allotted for this commentary diving too deep into that literature specifically. However, it is helpful to highlight that systems theories support analysis of complex entities, like families, as a collection of interrelated parts that function together (more or less) as a whole. They emphasize interactions, relationships, communication, and feedback loops within systems. Family Systems theory specifically (see Bowen, 1978; Kerr & Bowen, 1988) offers a framework for understanding the complex interrelationships within familial units. By viewing families as interconnected systems, this theory has provided valuable insights into how behaviors and emotions are reciprocally influenced by family dynamics. More specifically, General Systems thinking and subsequent Family Systems thinking have yielded deeper understanding of couple and family taxonomy, typology, and process, supporting exploration of family functioning and laying the groundwork for numerous developments in Family Science research. As noted by Whitchurch and Constantine (1993), taxonomies vary in their dimensional structure but do share the central assumption that similar relational patterns and similar family systems can be grouped to form various types. The Beavers (1977) Systems Model describes basic patterns of family functioning as healthy, mid-range, and severely dysfunctional, which are further subdivided into seven distinct types. The Circumplex Model (Olson et al., 1979) was originally conceived with the three dimensions of cohesion, adaptability, and communication that yields 16 specific types when the first two are placed on bisecting continua. Although neither are perfect, the family typologies described by both models have been well documented in terms of their heuristic value and utility for guiding research. Paradigmatic thinking shifts Family Systems taxonomies in a new, but related direction. Although we do not wish to provide a stunted recap of what Constantine described in his paper, we think it may be helpful to remind readers that family typologies are based on the concept of family paradigms. Here we draw upon descriptions Constantine provided in 1988. A paradigm is both a model and a worldview that “defines what a system is, can be, and ought to be in its approach to problems and its interrelationships with its environment” (p. 286). Further, a paradigm can be understood in the presence of “basic dualities or opposing tendencies of family living or group process” (p. 286). Process is defined as the enacted behaviors among those interacting within a system, and a regime is a set of mechanisms that help to regulate processes (Constantine, 1988, 2024). Constantine (1988) was among the earliest to identify theoretical limitations to variations in the organizational interactional premises of various taxonomies and associated models that family systems theorists had used to date. He asserted that they constrained development of fundamentally distinct family paradigm options to a finite number and called for a synthesis of open and synchronous systems at that time (referred to as the Unified paradigm in his current work). We mention this to underscore both the history and depth of this work with Family Systems and related contemporary extensions and applications. It is not outside the realm of possibility to presume that many family scholars of the early 21st century have read his work and used it to guide their own research and clinical practice today. One could easily have an apples and oranges conversation about systems and paradigmatic thinking. Our intent with this commentary is not to repudiate apples for not being oranges, or vice versa, when they are both fruit and both contribute to healthy functioning of the body (pun intended) of family scholarship. Systems thinking and paradigmatic frameworks may yield deeper understanding when taken together than when used alone. For example, systems theorists can help adoption professionals analyze the interconnected components of adoptive family systems, like adoptees, biological parents, adoptive parents, and policymakers; paradigmatic thinking could elucidate prevailing structural models of interaction (e.g., open vs. closed) that influence relationships over time. Typology and taxonomy have histories of providing foundational knowledge on family form, function, and process. Although central to the historical study of family dynamics, taxonomy-driven models and paradigmatic frameworks warrant critical examination. Whitchurch and Constantine (1993) included many criticisms in their seminal review of Systems theory, many of which persist today. What follows are our concerns related to systems-related taxonomies and, by extension, paradigmatic thinking. At the heart of paradigmatic theory is a reliance on binary oppositions (e.g., thesis and antithesis, open and synchronous) that often oversimplify the rich tapestry of human experience. This approach may inadvertently reduce complex realities and fails to account for nuanced meaning, relationships, roles, and identities. Categorization of specific relationships, roles, and identities internal to families into rigid absolutes neglects the complexities of non-binary interchanges. Such absolutist thinking can result in a failure to recognize the fluid nature of identity, which is often shaped by a myriad of cultural and contextual factors. Feminist scholars have long held assertions against the utility of dualisms that may artificially place concepts into oppositional contrasting camps when they alternatively could be compared (see Allen, 2023; Lorde, 1984). But comparison, by definition, considers exploration of similarity, contrasting necessitates differentiation. Comparison is an approach that serves us well as individuals navigating the world as it is through comparison that binaries are given breath and staying power. However, binary oppositions of paradigmatic thinking oversimplify the complexity of human experience, thus, neglecting the fluidity of meaning in diverse and dynamic contexts. As noted earlier, Whitchurch and Constantine (1993) described many similar criticisms in their seminal review of Systems theory, some of which have been resolved in the 30 years since. Family systems scholars have not turned a blind eye to these criticisms, but rather are advancing application into new areas of contemporary family life. This is illustrated in the work of Bámaca-Colbert et al. (2019) who identified that family systems perspectives have the potential to broaden theory and research on family cultural gaps by allowing focus on relational patterns that arise as families develop and adjust over time. Recognition of families as composed of interdependent, interrelated, and multidirectional patterned subsystems are helpful for understanding how the development (for example) of cultural gaps between one or more family members within a system may impact development of other parts of the same systems (Bámaca-Colbert et al., 2019). They further identify the limited scope of application of systems thinking in this line of research; their goal was to “expand the direction of future theory and research in order to help…advance the understanding of cultural gaps in family systems” (Bámaca-Colbert et al., 2019, p. 528). In doing so, they connect family systems thinking with family adaptive systems that are a fundamental part of Family Resilience (see Harrist et al., 2018; Henry et al., 2015). Family Resilience thinking offers an opportunity to examine the strengths of family systems propositions, and their contributions to the development of new frameworks for integrating and synthesizing observations of human relationships. Trask (2010, 2013, 2018), among others, have called for critical inquiry into how race, ethnicity, cultural variation across contexts and types, and other global processes impact individual and family development across systems of influence. Trask (2018) asserts that “to make the family science discipline relevant to 21st century concerns, we need to rethink and adapt the theories we use to study families” (p. 451), highlighting how many were born from the 19th century and formulated with specific socio-historical ideologies that may constrain theoretical application in the 21st century and into the future. Although this particular call is grounded in a desire to shift thinking about application of Life Course perspective for contemporary families, others have advocated similarly. Erden and Aiman Safi (2018) are among them. They seek to expand Family Systems theory to be more culturally inclusive, and thus culturally applicable, by including family characteristics like history, values, and rituals with gender, race and ethnicity, socio-economic situation, and sexuality. Their work focuses on what makes families different globally and applies a cultural lens approach to focus not on how family processes are different, but why. Among other things, they propose integration of Kağıtçıbaşı's family change theory and Carter and McGoldrick's multicultural perspective with Family Systems thinking. We draw a fourth example from the work of James et al. (2018). They assert that Family Systems theory could be strengthened by including race, ethnicity, racism, and components of historical time and choice with regard to how family systems self-organize as a result of interactions with external environments. They argue that despite the extensive influence of Family Systems theory in research and practice, contemporary extensions that include key constructs of race and racism could more centrally place the theory as valuable to the study of historically marginalized groups. They recognize the major criticism of systems thinking as “often decontextualized and applied as if all families had similar historical experiences and levels of choice in creating their families as they choose” (p. 429). We highlight the work of Bámaca-Colbert and colleagues, Trask, Erdem and Aiman Safi, and James and colleagues to illustrate a key point: criticisms of systems models and taxonomic structures can be addressed. They can be confronted, head on, and using critical inquiry can be integrated into systems thinking in ways that further the field and advance application and meaning for individuals, families, social groups, and communities that have historically been excluded from systems conversations. It may be that integrating Family Systems with other frameworks, like Feminism, could facilitate nuanced conceptualization and operationalization of family constructs in ways that better reflect the lived experiences of varied forms and functions of the myriad diverse families (Daly, 2003; Palkovitz et al., 2014). Unfortunately, Constantine does not do that in his latest paper. Further drawing upon Knapp's (2009) approach to critical theorizing may prove helpful. Theory aids the generation of knowledge and, in doing so, assumes the responsibility and risks associated with limiting and distorting knowledge claims (Knapp, 2009). Constantine (2024) largely focused on explicit assumptions about family functioning, leaving implicit assumptions largely unaddressed. Binary approaches predicated upon explicit assumptions about family functioning can be quite compelling. When considering the functions of theory related to the generation of knowledge, the paradigmatic framework falls short with respect to sensitizing us to the evolving ‘negative spaces’ (Daly, 2003) families occupy today. Moreover, the values being sustained by the paradigmatic framework are those embedded in contexts that privilege traditional, cisheteronormative families. Alternatives are needed that account for complexity (e.g., post-structuralism, contextualism, symbolic interactionism, and constructivism) and emphasize fluidity and the interplay of various influences on meaning. A balance between structured categories and flexibility may lead to more utility in research and practice. Accounting for flexibility and emphasizing fluidity will require both learning and unlearning. Families are sites of contradiction and tension (Lloyd et al., 2009); it logically follows that families would strain historical theoretical frameworks in nuanced ways (Trask, 2018). Although the paradigmatic framework addresses family dynamics broadly, it may underemphasize the unique and often disparate experiences of individuals within families. Not all family members fit neatly into the taxonomies of paradigmatic thinking within the cultural contexts being studied, which may obscure important variation. One contemporary extension of feminism, Queer theory, challenges scholars and practitioners to create new ways of thinking about perceived immutable conceptions of social binaries (see Fish & Russell, 2018; Jagose, 1997), and to reconsider worldviews grounded in “falsely bound categories that give the impression of fixity and permanence where none ‘naturally’ exists” (Crawley & Broad, 2008, p. 551). Queer theory necessitates the rejection of fixed categorization and acknowledges their capacity to be exclusionary (Seidman, 1996). One of the ways Queer theory has facilitated the expansion of the definition and conceptualization of family is through the disruption of binary thinking (Acosta, 2018). Fish and Russell (2018) describe queering methodologies to understand queer families, but their key assertions could transfer to any family structure and/or function that is marginalized as non-normative by culture, policy, and researchers who, over time, may be unwitting participants in theoretical systems that continue to favor some and disservice others. Their call to challenge fixed structures and attend to within-category variation may be duly noted and reconciled by researchers interested in systems and paradigmatic frameworks. Ultimately, the paradigmatic framework does not and, by design, cannot contribute to furthering the understanding of negative spaces in family theorizing, as described by Daly (2004). Daly (2004) drew upon earlier work (see Edwards, 1999; Marshall et al., 1993) to illuminate the recessive areas in everyday life that are often overlooked in family theory. Furthermore, he posited “many of the ‘negative spaces’ in our family theories are a function of our failure to be integrative in our theorising. Thus, ‘negative spaces’ arise from parallel disciplines that seek to explain this compartmentalised family reality” (Daly, 2004, p. 10) In doing so, we continue to miss the wealth of experiences and the nuanced complexities in shared meanings and interactions that shape how families diversify typology and context. Meaning shifts over time and cannot be cleanly labeled with fixed categories; we risk loss of cultural context and fluidity of meaning attempting to do so. Although the paradigmatic framework addresses family dynamics broadly, it may underemphasize the unique experiences and individual differences within families. Not all family members may fit neatly into the paradigms or cultural contexts being studied, potentially obscuring important variation. Capturing the complexity of family dynamics…involved challenging the old methods, creating new methods, challenging the old model, offering new theoretical interpretations, and reexamining both the old and the new. Family work (theorizing, research, and practice) is inherently messy, resistant to tidy compartmentalization. Nevertheless…the pursuit of a better understanding of families is a cause worthy of the agony and ecstasy. (Tiesel & Gorall, 2005, p. 53) Capturing the complexity of family dynamics with paradigmatic thinking should be preceded by similar pursuits. The paradigmatic framework remains largely untested and, despite claims of contributing to the “advancement of theory in family science in a direction that is both broader and more basic” (Constantine, 2024, p. 2), the resulting framework is more complex and may have less heuristics value than what already exists. Quantitative inputs will only ever equal quantitative outputs, when rich descriptive detail of qualitative inputs may be what a research inquiry requires. Qualitative inquiry, broadly, is needed to inform creation of measures that adequately capture Constantine's theoretical assertions. Furthermore, we must continue to elaborate and adapt both approaches (Thompson, 1992) to develop more comprehensive understandings of family functioning today. As the paradigmatic framework does not contribute meaningfully to “an assortment of salient contemporary issues in marriages and families” (Constantine, 2024, p. 14). Complexity for the sake of complexity cannot be helpful. We remind ourselves of what Daly (2004) cautioned 20 years ago: “our family theories have drifted away from what families actually do in their everyday lives” (p. 10). We risk othering families by continually using frameworks that do not reflect lived experiences of contemporary families. Feminist perspectives encourage us to challenge the more subtle, structurally embedded assumptions in theory development (Kaestle, 2016). Attempts to theorize intentionally and inclusively are still attempts that begin at a researcher's own social location. We all need to be wary of “universal” principles and practices in family studies; generalizability of findings across diverse populations and overtime should be a goal of theory but may be to the concept of theoretical Family Science at a when upon current paradigms. We must of our own flexibility and as family We can challenges by other disciplines that of categorization of and, thus, of the theoretical assumptions For example, of the of and the of ways to the fixed categories best families or Family We support and of contemporary families and family theories (see et al., with the understanding that theory, like is a of (Kaestle, 2016). with given that families are cultural systems embedded in systems that constrain and in ways that are and the (Kaestle, that binary the to understand the lived of families approaches are needed to shift binary thinking and with the and nature of family and in order to develop more grounded in everyday (Daly, 2004, p. 10). We must being with being with less doing will us to better account for families that are spaces for and well outside the of scholars need theories that are dynamic and nuanced to better capture the dynamic and nuanced nature of contemporary family that focus more on contexts and less on concepts may be most helpful in this regard.